[76lsjumb]

...of the buses that Kiffen just threw them under?

http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_2...source=rss

I'm not saying there isn't some validity to the criticism, and maybe it will work as motivation for them, but I'm also not seeing any mea culpa on Kiffin's part for that inexplicable running play he called on their last series that cost them several yards AND, given they were out of time-outs, a lot of wasted time on the [running] clock.

In addition, having watched the two interceptions a couple of times now, I think equal [if not more] blame for the first could be assigned to Wood for his "phone it in" effort on the play [and, frankly, for much of the game IMHO], and, on the second, it was actually a pretty good play by our DB.

But, hey..., whatever works for Kiffen. 

I just don't see Shaw saying that sort of thing in a similar situation.

[76lsjumb]

...of the buses that Kiffen just threw them under?

http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_2...source=rss

I'm not saying there isn't some validity to the criticism, and maybe it will work as motivation for them, but I'm also not seeing any mea culpa on Kiffin's part for that inexplicable running play he called on their last series that cost them several yards AND, given they were out of time-outs, a lot of wasted time on the [running] clock.

In addition, having watched the two interceptions a couple of times now, I think equal [if not more] blame for the first could be assigned to Wood for his "phone it in" effort on the play [and, frankly, for much of the game IMHO], and, on the second, it was actually a pretty good play by our DB.

But, hey..., whatever works for Kiffen. 

I just don't see Shaw saying that sort of thing in a similar situation.

[stanfan]

Actually, Shaw has made some pretty pointed comments from time to time.

[stanfan]

Actually, Shaw has made some pretty pointed comments from time to time.

[Hank 91]

I don't think Shaw has ever called anyone out directly. After the San Jose State game, for instance, when talking about how the defense got pushed around, he said something like, "We had some players tonight who need to play up to our expectations." And this part I remember exactly -- "I don't need to tell you who they are, because you know who they are." It's clearly a much better way of addressing the issue. What's to be gained by airing out your linebackers in the press? Much better to chew them out in the locker room, then get back to business on the practice field. Kiffin will learn that someday. Perhaps.

[Hank 91]

I don't think Shaw has ever called anyone out directly. After the San Jose State game, for instance, when talking about how the defense got pushed around, he said something like, "We had some players tonight who need to play up to our expectations." And this part I remember exactly -- "I don't need to tell you who they are, because you know who they are." It's clearly a much better way of addressing the issue. What's to be gained by airing out your linebackers in the press? Much better to chew them out in the locker room, then get back to business on the practice field. Kiffin will learn that someday. Perhaps.

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw has called out units before. For example, he said the front seven didn't live up to his expectations after the SJSU game. But I don't recall any instances of singling out specific players--but that's just my memory.

I don't necessarily have a problem with calling out specific players; for me it's a question of the context, the language, and the player in question. Calling out some poor true freshman or walk-on or something is poor form, for example; if, say, Shayne Skov ever did something to deserve a calling-out, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the dynamics of the Trojans to comment on it. Instead, what I find it is funny, as Kiffin promised NO FINGER POINTING after the game. I'm guessing what was meant was "NO FINGER POINTING [at Lane or Monte Kiffin.]"

[washingtonismoney]

Shaw has called out units before. For example, he said the front seven didn't live up to his expectations after the SJSU game. But I don't recall any instances of singling out specific players--but that's just my memory.

I don't necessarily have a problem with calling out specific players; for me it's a question of the context, the language, and the player in question. Calling out some poor true freshman or walk-on or something is poor form, for example; if, say, Shayne Skov ever did something to deserve a calling-out, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I'm not sufficiently familiar with the dynamics of the Trojans to comment on it. Instead, what I find it is funny, as Kiffin promised NO FINGER POINTING after the game. I'm guessing what was meant was "NO FINGER POINTING [at Lane or Monte Kiffin.]"

[76lsjumb]

I didn't think that running play was such a bad call. If you pop that running back by the pass rush, he goes for a long way, and the Stanford front seven has to lay back a bit on subsequent plays. Just having Matt Draco Malfoy drop back on every play was getting them killed, so they tried something different.

Maybe you're right, given how successful their running game had been up to that point... ::)  If he'd managed to get a few flying pigs out in front of him to block, he could have gained some real yardage...

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it [and, as you may recall, I was one of the ones who defended "the Kick"].  At that point in the game, S.C's offensive line couldn't have stopped the LSJUMB clarpicz section from getting into the backfield before the hand-off occurred, and their running backs -- at least the good ones -- were already pretty banged up.  Sure, every play has some chance of succeeding, and I will agree that dropping back on every play was getting them killed [except, of course, for the sideline catch that had just gotten them the first down], but the chances of "pass interference on X; fifteen yards and an automatic first down" were much, much greater than the chances of "...he goes for a long way..." happening.  And, as we saw, at least an incomplete drop back pass doesn't lose the extra 20 seconds or so that the tackle-for-a-loss did.

[76lsjumb]

I didn't think that running play was such a bad call. If you pop that running back by the pass rush, he goes for a long way, and the Stanford front seven has to lay back a bit on subsequent plays. Just having Matt Draco Malfoy drop back on every play was getting them killed, so they tried something different.

Maybe you're right, given how successful their running game had been up to that point... ::)  If he'd managed to get a few flying pigs out in front of him to block, he could have gained some real yardage...

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it [and, as you may recall, I was one of the ones who defended "the Kick"].  At that point in the game, S.C's offensive line couldn't have stopped the LSJUMB clarpicz section from getting into the backfield before the hand-off occurred, and their running backs -- at least the good ones -- were already pretty banged up.  Sure, every play has some chance of succeeding, and I will agree that dropping back on every play was getting them killed [except, of course, for the sideline catch that had just gotten them the first down], but the chances of "pass interference on X; fifteen yards and an automatic first down" were much, much greater than the chances of "...he goes for a long way..." happening.  And, as we saw, at least an incomplete drop back pass doesn't lose the extra 20 seconds or so that the tackle-for-a-loss did.

[Redrum]

I get to sit around in my den pondering the wisdom of trying a run late in the game when the run obviously wasn't working.  Lane Kiffin is a punk who needs to get whacked around a bit to become a really good coach for "fine young men".  He isn't all that now.    That said,  I know for a fact I would freeze like a marble statue trying to pick a play in 20 or less seconds in the same situation.  If the play worked and they keep driving, Kiffin's call would have been appraised as brilliant ability to think outside the box to counter his opponent's strength...or something equivalent.

[Redrum]

I get to sit around in my den pondering the wisdom of trying a run late in the game when the run obviously wasn't working.  Lane Kiffin is a punk who needs to get whacked around a bit to become a really good coach for "fine young men".  He isn't all that now.    That said,  I know for a fact I would freeze like a marble statue trying to pick a play in 20 or less seconds in the same situation.  If the play worked and they keep driving, Kiffin's call would have been appraised as brilliant ability to think outside the box to counter his opponent's strength...or something equivalent.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=6480.msg47954#msg47954 date=1347968621]
I didn't think that running play was such a bad call. If you pop that running back by the pass rush, he goes for a long way, and the Stanford front seven has to lay back a bit on subsequent plays. Just having Matt Draco Malfoy drop back on every play was getting them killed, so they tried something different.

Maybe you're right, given how successful their running game had been up to that point... ::)  If he'd managed to get a few flying pigs out in front of him to block, he could have gained some real yardage...

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it [and, as you may recall, I was one of the ones who defended "the Kick"].  At that point in the game, S.C's offensive line couldn't have stopped the LSJUMB clarpicz section from getting into the backfield before the hand-off occurred, and their running backs -- at least the good ones -- were already pretty banged up.  Sure, every play has some chance of succeeding, and I will agree that dropping back on every play was getting them killed [except, of course, for the sideline catch that had just gotten them the first down], but the chances of "pass interference on X; fifteen yards and an automatic first down" were much, much greater than the chances of "...he goes for a long way..." happening.  And, as we saw, at least an incomplete drop back pass doesn't lose the extra 20 seconds or so that the tackle-for-a-loss did.
[/quote]

They could have at least put a fullback in to lead block.  That OL was getting killed.

[fullmetal]

[quote author=garvin link=topic=6480.msg47954#msg47954 date=1347968621]
I didn't think that running play was such a bad call. If you pop that running back by the pass rush, he goes for a long way, and the Stanford front seven has to lay back a bit on subsequent plays. Just having Matt Draco Malfoy drop back on every play was getting them killed, so they tried something different.

Maybe you're right, given how successful their running game had been up to that point... ::)  If he'd managed to get a few flying pigs out in front of him to block, he could have gained some real yardage...

I'm sorry, I'm just not buying it [and, as you may recall, I was one of the ones who defended "the Kick"].  At that point in the game, S.C's offensive line couldn't have stopped the LSJUMB clarpicz section from getting into the backfield before the hand-off occurred, and their running backs -- at least the good ones -- were already pretty banged up.  Sure, every play has some chance of succeeding, and I will agree that dropping back on every play was getting them killed [except, of course, for the sideline catch that had just gotten them the first down], but the chances of "pass interference on X; fifteen yards and an automatic first down" were much, much greater than the chances of "...he goes for a long way..." happening.  And, as we saw, at least an incomplete drop back pass doesn't lose the extra 20 seconds or so that the tackle-for-a-loss did.
[/quote]

They could have at least put a fullback in to lead block.  That OL was getting killed.

[Farm93]

They could have at least put a fullback in to lead block.  That OL was getting killed.

FBs, like back-up PKs & OLs probably were sacrificed to get down to 75 scholarships.

SC fans seemed to really believe those NCAA reductions would have no impact on the quest to address that "unfinished business", but it seems clear now that the 75 limit reduced the number of back-ups and the quality of practice to get the remaining back-ups ready.  Oh well, too bad for them.

[Farm93]

They could have at least put a fullback in to lead block.  That OL was getting killed.

FBs, like back-up PKs & OLs probably were sacrificed to get down to 75 scholarships.

SC fans seemed to really believe those NCAA reductions would have no impact on the quest to address that "unfinished business", but it seems clear now that the 75 limit reduced the number of back-ups and the quality of practice to get the remaining back-ups ready.  Oh well, too bad for them.

[fullmetal]

When in doubt, pull in a big RB or OT to use as a FB.  Would have been worth a shot--the lead blocker might have stopped Ben Gardner and sprung McNeal for 6+ yds given how far back the LBs were playing in coverage (if McNeal wouldn't have pulled a Reggie Bush impression and do some real damage).

[fullmetal]

When in doubt, pull in a big RB or OT to use as a FB.  Would have been worth a shot--the lead blocker might have stopped Ben Gardner and sprung McNeal for 6+ yds given how far back the LBs were playing in coverage (if McNeal wouldn't have pulled a Reggie Bush impression and do some real damage).

[dabigv13]

USC did have a scholarship FB. He was one of the next in line for carries after Redd and McNeal were both injuried early. I think he may have gotten a few snaps.

[dabigv13]

USC did have a scholarship FB. He was one of the next in line for carries after Redd and McNeal were both injuried early. I think he may have gotten a few snaps.

[Nan3cy]

Okay, 75 scholarships is definitely less than 85. But pro teams seem to do okay with 53-man rosters. Granted, as someone (Wlat?) once said, there's no waiver wire in college, but still...

[Nan3cy]

Okay, 75 scholarships is definitely less than 85. But pro teams seem to do okay with 53-man rosters. Granted, as someone (Wlat?) once said, there's no waiver wire in college, but still...

[CowboyIndian]

the University of South Central did have a scholarship FB. He was one of the next in line for carries after Redd and McNeal were both injuried early. I think he may have gotten a few snaps.

Soma Vainuku...started as a fullback but forced into action. He's the guy that Ronnie Harris stripped on the faux field goal try.

[CowboyIndian]

the University of South Central did have a scholarship FB. He was one of the next in line for carries after Redd and McNeal were both injuried early. I think he may have gotten a few snaps.

Soma Vainuku...started as a fullback but forced into action. He's the guy that Ronnie Harris stripped on the faux field goal try.

[scorecard]

Google's type ahead feature is so on point sometimes.  If you type in: "Kiffin is a", the suggestions are weasel, liar, douche, and jerk. 

Any of those seems to fit the bill.  I simply can't figure out why anyone would want to play for a guy like Kiffin after reading his comments (and the same goes for red-faced Brian Kelly).  There really was no reason that he had to call out Barkley or his left tackle individually.  If he did feel it was necessary, Kiffin could have even just said that there were some mistakes made that we will work on correcting.  He didn't need to go to the extremes that he did in his comments, "two worst decisions ever".  Shaw's history of comments as pointed out by Hank91 are so much more of what I would expect from a leader.  The message should be that this is handled internally, but make no mistake, it will be handled.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by Kiffin's douchebaggery given his track record.  In just the past few months (which doesn't even touch on his dubious time at Tennessee and the Raiders), he has managed to:

- upset the media by banning a reporter for reporting an injury (not to mention storm out of a press conference again today)
- flaunt his use of a booster's private plane to recruit Silas Redd despite being on sanctions himself
- ban opposing teams from having walkthroughs at the Coliseum (to protect the turf)
- lie about voting his team #1 in the coaches poll, and then lie about why he lied

Barkley, to his credit, could have turned this into a brobdingnagian cluster, but he handled it a lot better than his coach did.  He defused the controversy, by making it seem like it was something that he appreciated. 

He is going to defend me when he has to and he’s going to be real when he has to. I’m glad he’s not hiding me behind a curtain or anything like that.

Um, okay, "Oh, I'm glad he just crapped all over me in the national media completely unnecessarily, because he is such a genuine truthful guy and he couldn't help himself.  I really deserved that public crap in my face, and yes sir, I would like another."  Stockholm syndrome come to mind? 

Even if Barkley somehow makes it back into Voldemort contention, people will say that in the toughest game of the year, his OWN COACH said he made two of the worst decisions in his time at USC.  Remember that the Voldemort is voted on before any bowl games, so unless Barkley gets another shot at us in the Pac-12 title game and puts up brobdingnagian numbers in a redeeming rout (it made me physically nauseous to even think about writing that sentence), all the other conferences and voters will point to our game as evidence that he can't do anything when he plays against a rugged SEC-style defense.  There is no way he wins the Voldemort now.  I'd say that Barkley's "unfinished business" is pretty much finished now, and Kiffin did not help Barkley's cause in the slightest. 

Again, if I'm a top high-school recruit, I'm definitely thinking twice about playing for a guy like Kiffin.  Beating SC is great any time, but beating SC and watching the resulting Lane Kiffin meltdown is the icing on the cake.  Pop goes the weasel!
 

[scorecard]

Google's type ahead feature is so on point sometimes.  If you type in: "Kiffin is a", the suggestions are weasel, liar, douche, and jerk. 

Any of those seems to fit the bill.  I simply can't figure out why anyone would want to play for a guy like Kiffin after reading his comments (and the same goes for red-faced Brian Kelly).  There really was no reason that he had to call out Barkley or his left tackle individually.  If he did feel it was necessary, Kiffin could have even just said that there were some mistakes made that we will work on correcting.  He didn't need to go to the extremes that he did in his comments, "two worst decisions ever".  Shaw's history of comments as pointed out by Hank91 are so much more of what I would expect from a leader.  The message should be that this is handled internally, but make no mistake, it will be handled.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised by Kiffin's douchebaggery given his track record.  In just the past few months (which doesn't even touch on his dubious time at Tennessee and the Raiders), he has managed to:

- upset the media by banning a reporter for reporting an injury (not to mention storm out of a press conference again today)
- flaunt his use of a booster's private plane to recruit Silas Redd despite being on sanctions himself
- ban opposing teams from having walkthroughs at the Coliseum (to protect the turf)
- lie about voting his team #1 in the coaches poll, and then lie about why he lied

Barkley, to his credit, could have turned this into a brobdingnagian cluster, but he handled it a lot better than his coach did.  He defused the controversy, by making it seem like it was something that he appreciated. 

He is going to defend me when he has to and he’s going to be real when he has to. I’m glad he’s not hiding me behind a curtain or anything like that.

Um, okay, "Oh, I'm glad he just crapped all over me in the national media completely unnecessarily, because he is such a genuine truthful guy and he couldn't help himself.  I really deserved that public crap in my face, and yes sir, I would like another."  Stockholm syndrome come to mind? 

Even if Barkley somehow makes it back into Voldemort contention, people will say that in the toughest game of the year, his OWN COACH said he made two of the worst decisions in his time at USC.  Remember that the Voldemort is voted on before any bowl games, so unless Barkley gets another shot at us in the Pac-12 title game and puts up brobdingnagian numbers in a redeeming rout (it made me physically nauseous to even think about writing that sentence), all the other conferences and voters will point to our game as evidence that he can't do anything when he plays against a rugged SEC-style defense.  There is no way he wins the Voldemort now.  I'd say that Barkley's "unfinished business" is pretty much finished now, and Kiffin did not help Barkley's cause in the slightest. 

Again, if I'm a top high-school recruit, I'm definitely thinking twice about playing for a guy like Kiffin.  Beating SC is great any time, but beating SC and watching the resulting Lane Kiffin meltdown is the icing on the cake.  Pop goes the weasel!
 

[fullmetal]

Speaking of Kiffin being Kiffen, here's a youtube clip of his post-practice report from yesterday.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFTJ_SdXm...ture=g-upl

Cheerful fella.

[fullmetal]

Speaking of Kiffin being Kiffen, here's a youtube clip of his post-practice report from yesterday.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFTJ_SdXm...ture=g-upl

Cheerful fella.

[Redrum]

for a losing coach the week after.  They tend to be very curt,  even snippy and-- after about 5 days of being skewered in public-- they absolutely hate having to keep going over and over stuff.  It's actually a personality requirement for jobs like coaching.  Being able to focus on the future and not wallow in what's past.

Less generally football relevant than Lane-Kiffin-watching relevant.  And as far as Lane Kiffin goes,  it's completely in character.

[Redrum]

for a losing coach the week after.  They tend to be very curt,  even snippy and-- after about 5 days of being skewered in public-- they absolutely hate having to keep going over and over stuff.  It's actually a personality requirement for jobs like coaching.  Being able to focus on the future and not wallow in what's past.

Less generally football relevant than Lane-Kiffin-watching relevant.  And as far as Lane Kiffin goes,  it's completely in character.

[jayasena]

Even if Draco Malfoy somehow makes it back into Voldemort contention, people will say that in the toughest game of the year, his OWN COACH said he made two of the worst decisions in his time at the team Under Stanford Control.  Remember that the Voldemort is voted on before any bowl games, so unless Draco Malfoy gets another shot at us in the Pac-12 title game and puts up of extremely large proportions numbers in a redeeming rout (it made me physically nauseous to even think about writing that sentence), all the other conferences and voters will point to our game as evidence that he can't do anything when he plays against a rugged SEC-style defense.  There is no way he wins the Voldemort now.

Nah, Voldemort voters don't remember anything beyond the two most recent weeks of games before the voting (and even whether they remember the second week is questionable). How else do you explain Luck going from leader to decided underdog in the final week based on RG III beating up on a barely-above-0.5 Texas team?

[jayasena]

Even if Draco Malfoy somehow makes it back into Voldemort contention, people will say that in the toughest game of the year, his OWN COACH said he made two of the worst decisions in his time at the team Under Stanford Control.  Remember that the Voldemort is voted on before any bowl games, so unless Draco Malfoy gets another shot at us in the Pac-12 title game and puts up of extremely large proportions numbers in a redeeming rout (it made me physically nauseous to even think about writing that sentence), all the other conferences and voters will point to our game as evidence that he can't do anything when he plays against a rugged SEC-style defense.  There is no way he wins the Voldemort now.

Nah, Voldemort voters don't remember anything beyond the two most recent weeks of games before the voting (and even whether they remember the second week is questionable). How else do you explain Luck going from leader to decided underdog in the final week based on RG III beating up on a barely-above-0.5 Texas team?

[fullmetal]

U$C has UO, Arizona UCLA, and ND to close out the season.  They definitely have chances to shine, so you're right that Draco Malfoy could be back in the thick of things.

I just remember that Baylor, against Kansas (that doormat of doormats), was losing for three quarters last year before RG3 decided to show up.  That's not the mark of a Voldemort winner at all, being shut down by a Kansas defense at any point in the game.  Poll voters and Voldemort voters in general need to be punched in the nose.

[fullmetal]

U$C has UO, Arizona UCLA, and ND to close out the season.  They definitely have chances to shine, so you're right that Draco Malfoy could be back in the thick of things.

I just remember that Baylor, against Kansas (that doormat of doormats), was losing for three quarters last year before RG3 decided to show up.  That's not the mark of a Voldemort winner at all, being shut down by a Kansas defense at any point in the game.  Poll voters and Voldemort voters in general need to be punched in the nose.